....While pondering Bachert's place in the Ripper mystery, I realized that he described a man very much like Fanny Mortimer's (who subsequently turned out to be Leon Goldstein), who carried a black bag.

Congratulations Tom, very interesting article. I did wonder what the basis was for the claim that the man Bachert saw was, "..the spitting image of Leon Goldstein", how do you establish that?
Then, this claim appears to be the basis for your subsequent suggestion that Bachert's story was concocted?
Though it has also struck me the over supply of men in morning-coats hovering around Stride moments before her death.

That was the only part I saw as suspicious, otherwise a nicely written article.

Hi Archaic, thank you for that. What sparked the article was my observation that Bachert, like Le Grand, first appeared on the Ripper scene immediately after the double event, and also like Le Grand, promoted a suspect that seemed completely fictitious. While pondering Bachert's place in the Ripper mystery, I realized that he described a man very much like Fanny Mortimer's (who subsequently turned out to be Leon Goldstein), who carried a black bag. I knew that the chatty Mortimer was talking up what she saw on the pavement of Berner Street, and I wondered if maybe Bachert didn't hear it there. I already knew that he had a beef with the Berner Street boys, so I built the article around that. Even though I don't personally think Bachert killed anybody, I think if that article had been published in the mid-90's, when Ripperology was not jaded at all, he would have grown into a full-blown suspect by now.

Hi Mike, thanks for that. You know I like your stuff, and I hear there's more coming soon? As for me being prolific, I haven't written an article since early 2010, I just wrote a bunch at once and they've been getting published ever since. Bachert in Berner Street was the last, unless Don breaks down and agrees to pay me more than that Hainsworth guy is getting.

Thanks, Lynn. I understand the Casebook Examiner boasted more subscribers than Ripperologist, and this is entirely due to my contributions to that journal. I'm a modest fellow, so I'm not personaly comfortable with that. I would say it's largely due to my contributions. I was sad when it folded after only a year, but was delighted that Don decided to do his own journal. He would only do it if I contributed a piece, so there it is. I only hope and pray that subscribers don't expect something from me every issue. That wouldn't be fair to the other contributors who by now must surely be tired of living in my shadow.

Indeed! Merely to be mentioned on the same page as you is a huge honour and privilege, and, I assure you, a deeply humbling experience.

Though I can't help but wonder how such a prodigy as yourself has not managed to make a living out of writing on its own, ala the great authors of the past - Dickens, Doyle, Thackeray, etc - as opposed to moping reminisces of "Casebook Examiner"? Surely they and their kind aren't even a blotch on your canvas of magnificence? Or have you refrained from entering into the fictional arena?

And so that makes it all the more humbling, that you would lower your prestigious standards to continue contributing to our humble periodicals.